« Google me | HomePage | Beliefs about feelings »
Saturday, 05 July 2008
The non-drug addict
Well they are at it again!
Ben Cousins has signed to play footy again and the press is having a field day. Ben Cousins is the Australian Rules Football version of David Beckham. Very high public profile and with a much publicised drug problem. He was delisted and now he has just “re-listed” to play again.
There is one question that I have always wanted to ask and no one seems to have asked it. Here is a man who is repeated called a drug addict although one must say that all he has publicly stated is that he has a “drug problem”. That term could mean a wide variety of things but he has admitted to this.
I worked in drug rehab for a number of years and worked with many addicts who were on parole. Part of their parole was often court ordered drug tests usually once or twice a week. They would test for about 10 different substances such as cannabis, amphetamines, heroin, cocaine and so forth. It always surprised me at how often they would present with a positive test. Sometimes they would come back with all ten substances indicated in their urine!
Busted!
They would have known that this would be the case and I used to think why bother having the test in the first place. They should have just refused the test or made up some excuse like “I missed the bus” or my “Grandmother had a stroke”. I must admit some of the excuses they came up with were pretty creative.
But that is the nature of drug addiction. They know taking the drug will lead to bad consequences and yet they find it really, really, really hard not to. That is what a drug addict is.
Now over a period of a couple of years Ben Cousins was subjected to pre-planned and random urine tests as were all footballers in the league. But they were onto him so he would have also been target tested. He would have been ‘piss’ tested (as they impolitely call it) on numerous occasions over an extended period. Guess what, in all those tests he never returned one positive urine test. Yes every single one of his urine tests was clean.
Hello? Hello? Is there anyone out there? Did I miss something?
How can a man who is apparently a drug addict be tested on numerous occasions over an extended period of time and not return one positive urine test?
I would like someone to answer that question for me?
This question is just sort of ignored and no one seems to ask it and everyone just carries on like nothing has happened.
Is this for real.
To my mind there are 3 possible answers
He isn’t a drug addict and his drug use is minor
or
The league’s drug testing regime has more holes in it than swiss cheese
or
He has an effective masking agent
This seems a fairly important question to ask because if a ‘drug addict’ can repeatedly give clean urine tests then any other footballer could easily use drugs recreationally and give clean test results.
However in the words of the great man himself - Benny Cousins - Such is life!
The great man with his 'Such is life" tatt.
Graffiti
10:35 Permalink | Comments (33) | Email this
Comments
Hmmm, well maybe he has a Whizzinator. Or a friend who supplies him with clean urine.
Depends on how "supervised" the tests are. They are pretty sneaky ways to get around it.
But, um, I don't really understand testing athletes for drugs like pot, coke, etc. I mean, steroids, if that's against the rules---I can see that. Because they would give an unfair advantage. But the other drugs would just hinder most professional athletes' performance, so why do we care? Worst case scenario they weed themselves out (i.e. they are so coked up/stoned all the time they let themselves get out of shape).
Posted by: April | Saturday, 05 July 2008
I agree with you wholeheartedly April.
Certainly test for performance enhancing drugs but not recreational drugs. It is just too much of a big brother approach for my liking.
I worked in a prison for a while and heard all the possible ways to scam a urine test. I agree some are very creative indeed.
Cheers
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Saturday, 05 July 2008
I think that sometimes people refer to an alcoholic as the Dry Alcoholic. Perhaps for explainantion sake Ben could be called the "Phantom Addict"? Of course I disagree with the term Dry Alcoholic and perhaps co dependancy is a better term.
The thing is as Tony says, he is not addicted if there are no drugs in his system. These days the term for drug users being "clean" has now been deemed politically incorect. "Clean" infers the drug user is "dirty" if still using. The correct term is now Drug Free. Good luck to Ben Cousins I say.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Saturday, 05 July 2008
Kenoath,
Call him the phantom is probably a good idea.
I will remember that Kenoath - it is now drug free rather than clean.
Graffiti
Posted by: Graffiti | Saturday, 05 July 2008
Yes, Graffiti, you must make sure the words you use are politically correct. The language police might come and get you :-) hehehe!
Posted by: gezunda | Saturday, 05 July 2008
I thought it was so wrong the way the media hounded Ben Cousins. I don't think they would have been happy until they could report that the poor guy had committed suicide. The media go too far and they didn't leave him alone for one minute. And I agree with April that yes, test for steroids but I don't think recreational drugs should be tested for either. Like April said usually it will cut down an athletes performance, rather than enhance it and eventually they have to give up the sport anyway.
Posted by: KazzaB | Saturday, 05 July 2008
They did for me Madeleine, someone busted me for using the word "clean". clean, clean, clean over the speed limit not.
k
Posted by: kenoath | Saturday, 05 July 2008
Damn, Kenoath. I thought I was kidding about the "language police".
Posted by: gezunda | Saturday, 05 July 2008
Isn't illegal drug use... like... illegal?
Posted by: roses | Saturday, 05 July 2008
I have to hit the sack now. *Yawn....* Nitey night
Posted by: roses | Saturday, 05 July 2008
Roses,
You make a good point!
Your comment tickles me.
Posted by: kahless | Sunday, 06 July 2008
I don't really understand Roses point in her question. I do know that illicit drugs are what they say....illicit. What is you point Roses?
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Yes Roses you are right,
It is illegal and therefore we should test them. Of course we can't just do sportsmen as that is discriminatory so we will all test people in every workplace and educational institution.
And you are right it is illegal and one has no need to be concerned if they just play by the rules. We should also put up concealed CCTVs around the city so if anyone is doing anything illegal they will be identified. And you are right if they are not doing anything illegal then one has no need to be concerned if they just play by the rules. And it would probably be best if people carried their papers with them at all times as well just so we can keep tabs on things. And you are right if one is not doing anything illegal then one has no need to be concerned.
Cheers
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Well Ken, i guess what i'm trying to understand is that - if using illegal drugs is actually illegal then being caught using them probably has consequences.
Personally it appears to me that the consequences for a fairly well known personality behaving in such a way - knowing that there are consequences - are consequential, then, i can only assume that there are very good reasons for him/them/us doing so.
Everyone involved (foot ball crew, Ben, and others) seem to be getting some lime light. I remember getting into trouble at school for chewing gum or breaking the rules some how or other and although it was pretty frightening - i remember when (I thought everyone thought that i thought) no one was looking putting up my hand to semi (only semi mind you) hide my giggling.
Posted by: roses | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Well all that stuff is happening now Tony. The cameras are multiplying as we speak. They must have an exceptional breeding system for mini camera's - geez! They're everywhere!
I was breath tested the other day. Gosh it was fun - anyway the little hand held thingy was the kind that you talk to. I had to count to 10. No blowing into the little straw thing or anything! Just - "count up to 10 please".
It perhaps wouldn't have been as much 'silly' fun if i had been drinking. No, that would have been a tad more 'thrilling' i think. Yep - more like the, "giggling behind my hand" kind of fun.
Posted by: roses | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Kahless is ticklish! Uh ohh!
Posted by: roses | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Yes, Roses, using illicit drugs do have consequences if one gets caught, that is what I understand about the term illicit drugs being illegal and didn't really need you to explain that again to me. I still do not understand you making the above point in relation to Tony's blog. It seems that what you are saying is that anyone using illicit drugs is "shit". I would be interested to know your perspective of some minority groups in our communities.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Did the police check your tyres and rego sticker too Roses? Or did they miss some rust or an oil leak under the hood? They checked those things for me when I got breath tested the other day. Lucky for me I was "licit" that night. So many people are illicit drivers and car owners and get away with it.
k
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Are you honestly under the impression that drug use only involves a minority of our population? Ken, seriously!
Does me chewing chewing gum in class make me less decent a person? Oh please Ken - really!
I'm not talking sewrage, i'm talking people and their means - Human beings getting caught up in cycles. Geez, a habit is a habit - it's just that society has been trained to believe that some habits are bad and others are not so bad or even good. A habit is a habit, i don't know, maybe i'm wrong (probability is high) but i can't seem to believe that venturing out to varify consequences turns people into sewrage. Don't people have to be dead before they begin to decompose?
Yeah - some get caught and others don't. Perhaps it's the gambling bug we actually have and it just looks like substance abuse. Russion rulette?
Ok Ken - so what ride are we on now? Why the button pushing? What is it you want and why can't you just ask?
Posted by: roses | Sunday, 06 July 2008
I thought I did ask Roses.
Ken
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Yeah, so he's saying that it's all a bit 'ify'. So?
Was your question - what do i think of minority groups?
Or was it - what did my comment have to do with Tony's post?
Are you actually interested if they checked my license or rego that night?
Or are you trying to get me to say Illicit rather than illegal?
I don't think drug users are sewrage. I do believe that some of our press' go the sewrage route and often. It must splash because (hopefully only a few) within the industry smell pretty badly.
Posted by: roses | Sunday, 06 July 2008
I'm sorry, who ever it was that lost the bet. I wasn't going to go there but just felt to do it anyway.
Posted by: roses | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Now I dont understand Roses - a bet?
I reckon it is sunday eve where you are so have a good evening.
xx.
Posted by: kahless | Sunday, 06 July 2008
I didn't understand what happened there either Kahless.
Posted by: gezunda | Sunday, 06 July 2008
Hey Gezunda, was it Dicar of Vibley night?
Posted by: kahless | Sunday, 06 July 2008
I just happen to have the 2007 issue of the illicit drug reporting system (australian drug trends) and its got all the up to date prices of all the drugs and the percentage of IDU's using meth or crystal meth. The ages of children up to adults who get into illicit drugs is interesting. There was another book (quite thick) which dealt with eccstacy alone. Apparently heroin made a comeback in 2007. The price for a gram in Sydney was $300 while in Perth it was $650+.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Sunday, 06 July 2008
My tool bar, for some inexplicable reason, has decided to reside at the top of my screen. Now this action could be seen as rebellion of the status quo, but i think this computer is ill. Perhaps it has caught a cold and this symptom is equivalent to a runny nose? If that were the case then - eww!
Happy Monday! I'm going away for a little while. Cheers...
Posted by: roses | Monday, 07 July 2008
I'm having some difficulty understanding the 'why' of all this stuff. Here's a link to an article about it...
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=592883
I don't understand the 'why'. I don't understand the price or cost?
Artists use to do nude all the time didn't they? I don't love too much nude - bit of a prude it guess - but what they are suggesting, it's like baning guns because some people get kill, or alcohol because some are alcoholics - i don't see them banning cars or sugary foods or weather conditions. I guess whether people take pictures of kids in the nude - well, not all that crucial a thing perhaps - but i don't understand the 'why' as to it being so bad.
Posted by: roses | Monday, 07 July 2008
Ken, my last comment has relavents in that - i have photo albums with quite a few photos of our kids and quite a few kids when they were younger - perhaps not in their teens but that doesn't mean other families don't - of them running, playing, laughing with each other in the nude. Am i taking the photos to get a sexual kick out of it or am i just a mum collecting pictures of our kids for future fun and varification for each? AND should i destroy the photos because some one may find sexual enjoyment if ever they look at the photos?
Same - is Ben a substance abuser thus adding to the great statistical mountain in the sky where all things 'are' because the statistics say they are - or - is he just having the occasional good time and not regularly feeding the evil drug habits that bombard his and his friends lives?
The question needs to be asked. Does keeping photos of kids in the nude make me a pedophile or a feeder of habitual pedophiles? Does Ben getting caught with 'supposed' blood test evidence, make him a substance abuser? AND when do we actually allow people to be healed if they are thought of as sick?
Kazza - i personally think that the press are grabbing desparately for a dead horse to flog. Some of the press do sometimes wiff of sewrage.
Posted by: roses | Monday, 07 July 2008
well said Roses, It could be that the media are keeoing psome people sick by constantly reporting the same sensational news stories. I hope Ben Cousins is intelligent enough to not be slotted as the victim here.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Monday, 07 July 2008
I spotted a truck today, Graffiti "Cleaning & Graffiti Removal". Hmmmmmmmmm. Interesting thought !!
Posted by: Madeleine | Monday, 07 July 2008
Well Ken,
I guess that all depends on the whether doesn't it?
Posted by: roses | Tuesday, 08 July 2008
Yes the weather is important Roses, the world is full of maybe's and what for's. perhaps it is better to make a decision sooner or later about life.
k
Posted by: kenoath | Tuesday, 08 July 2008